ShareThis Page
Want her vote? Don’t robocall |

Want her vote? Don’t robocall

Letter To The Editor
| Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:00 p.m

May’s primary was the first election in which I didn’t vote because I was protesting the number of robocalls received on my landline from candidates. An invasion of privacy, these prerecorded tele-campaigns should be outlawed. With other kinds of robocalls, prior consent is required. But political candidates had carte blanche, ringing my telephone day and night, from 7:30 in the morning until 10 p.m.

When I was home to answer these robocalls, I ran up a flight of stairs from doing laundry or ran inside from watering flowers only to hear someone’s auto-dialed spiel on the wonders he would perform if only I voted for him. My choice was to listen, hang up or not answer. When I chose to hang up, the phone still had that blinking light. When I chose not to answer, my inbox filled to capacity.

I missed a reminder for a dental appointment, calls from my students, a dinner invitation — all because my inbox was filled with junk politicos.

In the future, I will not allow candidates who resort to these calls to let my voting privilege fall by the wayside. Instead, I’ll make a list of the miscreants and vote for the other candidates, the ones who walk the neighborhood when I am watering the flowers, who write me unobtrusive letters.

If the U.S. Postal Service isn’t good enough for candidates, maybe they should consider a different career from government.

Marianne Trale


Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.